HD 197 
1844 
Copy 1 



LIBRAE OF CONGRESS 



0027 331 554 8 



Horn I A PAMPHLET, 

1844 
Copy 1 



ON 



PRIVATE PROPERTY WEST OF THE MISSISSIPPI, 



PROTECTED BY 



THE TREATY OF PARIS OF 1803. 



\ V 



WASHINGTON 
18 4 1- 



yAO 



(VI 



A PAMPHLET, &c. 



I propose to review, as briefly as practicable, the 
general history of this Treaty, and the series of laws 
which purport to have been enacted in fulfillment of 
its stipulations. The subject is of as much national in- 
terest as ever were the French, Neapolitan, Mexican 
or Peruvian Indemnities, and claims general attention 
for its intrinsic merits long obscured by a confused 
mass of Congressional acts which have continued' 
from first to last, invasive of private rights and viola- 
tive of public faith. 

After the invasions of the Spanish adventurers De 
Narvaez and De Soto, the French were the first to 
discover, settle and claim as their own, the country 
west of the Mississippi, to which they gave the name 
of Louisiana. French settlements began in it about 
the year 1686, and were continued, fostered and pro- 
tected by thvj French government until the year 1762, 
when it was ceded to Spain. Spa«n possessed it, ex- 
ercised jurisdiction and sovereignty over it, and en- 
couraged settlements in it, from that period up to the 
year 1800, when, by the treaty of San Ildenfonso, it 
was retroceded to France. It came into possession 
of the United States by purchase of France, in 1803, 
by the treaty of the 30th of April of that year, sub- 
ject tothe incumbrances of the grants previously made 
in it to private individuals. The population of Louis- 
iana at that period amounted to about 77,000. These 
inhabitants, innocent holders of ihe soil that had been 
granted to them, were encouraged to believe that they 
would be protected in all their rights of liberty and 
property as fully as though no change in the govern- 
ment had taken place. " Let the Louisianians 
1 know," said Napoleon, " that we separate ourselves 
' from them with regret ; that we stipulate in their 
1 favor every thing that they can desire, and let them 
' hereafter, happy in their independence, recollect that 



' they have been Frenchmen, and that France, in ced- 

* ing them, has secured for them advantages which 
' they could not have obtained from a European power, 

• however paternal it might have been." — Journal of 
the negotiation. 

" I hope and promise myself," said Louis the XVth 
after the cession of Louisiana to Spain, in 1762, 
"that the inhabitants be preserved and maintained in 
1 their possessions : that they be confirmed in the pro- 
' perty of their estates, according to the grants which 
1 have been made by the governors and directors of the 
1 colony, and that all the said grants be holden and 
( taken as confirmed by his Catholic Majesty, even 
' though not as yet confirmed by a&y—Imtructiont 
to Gov. VJlbadie, 1764. 

"All grants made by my governors by whatever de- 
1 nomination, shall be confirmed," said the King of 
Spain, and "the inhabitants shall continue in the 
1 peaceful possession of their pioperty." — Royal De- 
spatch at Barcelona, Oct. 1802. 

But what is the still higher authority of the treaty, 
which was and is the supreme law % It conveyed to 
the United States, "all public tats and squares, va- 
{ cant lands, and all public buildings, fortifications, 
■ barracks, and other edifices which are not private 
1 property." And the 3d article provided that the in- 
habitants "should be incorporated in the Union, of 
' the United States, and admitted as soon a3 possible, 
( according to the principles of the federal constitu- 
tion, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages 
1 and immunities of citizens of the United States; 
' and, that they should in the meantime, be main- 
c tained and protected in the enjoyment of their liber- 
1 ty, property, and the religion which they profess." 

The purchase of Louisiana cost the United States, 
principal and interest, $23,529,353. And they re- 



ceived by it 949,674, 873 acres,* in Louisiana, Ar- 
kansas, Missouri, Iowa, and the northwestern and 
western territories to the Pacific; and, from 
sales of it, they have realised more than the 
amount of the purchase money. They have 
sold upwards of 25,000,000 acres, which, at $1 25 per 
acre, have yielded $31,250,000. The United States 
have granted, in Louisiana. Arkansas, Missouri and 
Iowa, for internal improvements, salines, seats of gov- 
ernment and public buildings, colleges, common 
schools, Indian reservations in fee, and individuals, 
about 4,783,000 acres. Leaving the United States 
still, 9 19,89 1,873 of acres unsold, including the 132 
millions set apart for emigrant Indians. 

Of all this vast domain of ancient Louisiana, which, 
after having been more than paid for by the people 
who dwell in it, yet remains a source of countless 
wealth to the Union, there are claimed, under French 
and Spanish grants, the comparatively small number 
of 4,047,311 acres.t These grants, when complete, 
as they emanated from the same grantors, and were 
guaranteed by the tteaty, constituted as valid a title 
as that conveyed to the United States. There was 
no good reason why the owners of the grants, their 
heirs and assigns, should not have held and enjoyed 
their lands without hindrance or disturbance. The 
United States were as strongly bound, morally and 
legally, to respect and protect their titles, as they were 
to warrant and defend their own to purchasers under 
them. All the rights of property acquired before the 
date of the treaty were secured to the citizens of the 
territory as absolutely under the United States, as 
they existed previously, and the inhabitants were re- 
ceived to all the immunities of citizens of the United 
States. Private property and occupied lands were 
not ceded to the United States; but "the United 
States stipulated that the inhabitants of the ceded ter- 
ritory should be protected in the free enjoyment of 
their property," said the Supreme Court. "The 
United States," they continued, "as a just nation, re- 
' gard this stipulation as the avowal of a principle 
f which would have been equally sound if it had not 
' been inserted in the contract." "And the term pro- 

*This is the amount west of the Mississippi, and 
below the 49th degree of north latitude. If the par- 
allel 54 a 40' be taken as the northern boundary of 
Oregon, then 104,640,000 acres are to be added. 

t This is according to the report of the Lai.d Of- 
fice, April 21, 1843. Mr. Berrien's report, January 
9, 1828, computed them all, including Florida, Mis- 
sissippi, Alabama, Michigan and Illinois, at 12,000,- 
000 of acres. The Missouri Legislature, Feb. 28, 
1831, said, "millions of acres" were computed to be 
claimed in that State. This was probably only a 
random conjecture. 



! perty, as applied to land, comprehends every species 
{ of property, inchoate or complete." "No principle is 
1 better settled in this country than that an inchoate 
' title to lands is property." — Delusas vs. the U. S., 9th 
Peters, p. 133. 

Many of the inhabitants of the ceded territory, 
their descendants and assigns, justly complain that 
the stipulation has not been fulfilled on the part of the 
United States. The protection has not been ade- 
quately nor always willingly extended ; and, in too 
many instances, it has been "the protection the vul- 
1 ture shows to the lamb." The very first step taken 
by this government under the treaty, in reference to 
these grantees, was an attempted usurpation of their 
rights. This was an attempt to curtail the extent of 
the grants. The act of Congress of 1805, establish- 
ing the first Board of Commissioners, with authority 
to take testimony and to examine and decide on all 
claims presented to them according to justice and 
equity, at the same time limited the greatest extent of 
anyone claim to one tract of a mile square (640 acres) 
to the head of a family, with such further quantity for 
the wife and children as had been usually allowed by 
the laws and customs of the former government.— 
This looked, at once, like an invasion of the grants of 
the former governments, and a violation of the treaty. 
A supplementary act, extending the time of filing no- 
tices of claims with the commissioners, &c, was pass* 
ed in 1806. This act also directed any claim not 
above 640 acres, to be confirmed, if it had been occu- 
pied ten consecutive years prior to 1803. In 1807, 
the time was further extended, the powers of the com- 
missioners enlarged, the extent of the claim admitted 
to a league square,* but another usurpation of the 
property of the inhabitants of the ceded territory was 
attempted. The law required the commissioners to 
exclude all claims f grants that should include with- 
in them a salt spring or a lead mine ! But 
it made the decisions of the board, when favorable, 
final as to all claims not exceeding in quantity 
a league square, and having no salt or lead, 
and directed them to report their opinions of the larger 
claims. There was a sign of magnanimous protec- 
tion, when in 1811, Congress agreed that they would 
not offer for sale any claim which was duly before the 
Commissioners for their investigation ! It was not 
until the 8th of January, 1812, that She transcript of 
the decisions of the Commissioners made prior to that 
date, were laid before Congress ; and not until the 12th 
of April, 1814, that Congress confirmed those deci- 
sions limiting the quantity of any one claim confirmed 
to a league square. Six days afterward, Congress be- 
gan to see the impropriety and illegality of their at- 



* A league square is 7,056 arpents, or 0,002} acres. 
Barton's Rep. to Senate, Jan. 20, 1830. 






tempted curtailments of private property which were 
guarantied in full by treaty, and the 8th of April, 
1814j saw an act passed confirmingjall grants report- 
ed in favor of claimants according to the act of 1807, 
and all claims favorably reported on embraced in the 
transcript of decisions laid before Congress. But 
here a new obstruction occurred : the land officers 
were unable to understand the legislation of Congress; 
could not determine under which of the laws any 
claim should be patented, and so, with few exceptions, 
no patents, as directed by law, were issued. 

Thus the attempts of Congress to protect the in- 
habitants of the ceded territory in their property, in 
conformity with treaty stipulations, amounted to no- 
thing. In the meantime Louisiana was added to the 
sisterhood of States, and Missouri and Arkansas fol- 
lowed her into the Union, ranging themselves along 
the front of the ceded territory. At length, on the 
26th of May, 1824, the ghost of the treaty staring 
Congress in the face, a law was enacted to enable 
claimants in Missouri and Arkansas to try the validi- 
ty of their titles in the courts. In this law there was 
no attempt to limit the amount of land to which a 
claimant should be allowed to show a better title than 
the government, (except as to Arkansas, where the 
limit was a league square,) nor any exclusion of salt 
springs,or lead mines,but it did contain a provision, pro- 
tecting, agmns£ the claimant,any usurpation of the land, 
to which he should establish a valid title, by officers of 
the government, or settlers upon the claim under the 
authority of Congress. Declaring to the claimant, 
in other words, that he should not have the land 
granted to him by the former government, if it had 
been sold, or settled on, under this ! This was a 
new specimen of the protection secured by the treaty 
to the property of the inhabitants of the ceded terri- 
tory. Only three claims were settled under this law 
in 4 years, and it was extended to a further period by 
the act of May 24, 1828, a call in the President's 
Message of 1826, and an able report by Mr. Berrien, 
i« January, 1828, in^ favor of the claimants, having 
preceded it. One cause of the inefficiency of the 
law of '24 was, that the frightful expense and 
trouble imposed by it upon the claimants, in the 
shape of fees to government officers, filing se- 
curity for costs, &c, &c, obliged many to withhold 
their petitions, and forced the owners of the smaller 
claims to total despair.* In the meantime, the laws of 
Congress being not only misunderstood but disre- 
garded by the land officers, entries, floats and pre- 
emptions, were allowed upon claims which had been 
confirmed by the Commissioners and even by Con- 
gress. Claims, large or small, were actually taken 
possession of and sold to the highest bidder ! The 

♦These expenses were somewhat relieved by the 
act of 1828. 



treaty was not only a dead letter, but the laws of Con- 
gress seemed to be nullities. Some of these unlaw- 
ful sales, it is true, were annulled by the act of July 4, 

1832, and the money directed to be refunded to the 
purchasers. But the declining spirit of justice, which 
had affected land officers and squatters, seemed at 
last to have taken possession of Congress and turned 
them openly against the claims ef the inhabitants of 
the ceded territory. They came to the passage of laws, 
taking possession of, cutting up, and selling some of 
the claims confirmed, by public*auction, intimating to 
the claimants the poor charity of a permission, if their 
titles proved valid, to locate elsewhere!* sThese 
seizures and appropriations of the private property of 
the inhabitants of the ceded territory by the govern- 
ment and its officers, were not only a violation of the 
unrepealed law of Congress of 1811, but an in- 
vasion of private rights, and an infraction of even 
the modern usages of war, which do not admit a 
conqueror to seize the property of pacific persons for 
the sake of gain to himself.f 

The act of the 9th of July, 1832, extended the 
time for examining and reporting upon these claims 
two years, and the supplemental act of March 2 y 

1833, prolonged the time two years further. The 
last report of Commisioners was made on the 27th of 
November, 1833, and an act of confirmation followed 
it July 4, 1836, with similar exceptions, as to inter- 
fering locations, a3 were contained in the 11th sec- 
tion of the acts of May 26, 1824. This law of 183& 
had reference to claims in Missouri, and directed the 
survey of 332 tracts, but the Commissioners report- 
ed that there remained in Missouri seven hundred 
claims, on which they had not acted. There are a 
few special laws confirming individual claims, which 
I have not noticed, and other special laws seizing 
private claims. Among the last is one so late as Au- 
gust 16, 1842. This latter process, of acquiring the 
property of citizens, is notably simple. Congress 
passes a law that a certain private claim, heretofore 
reserved from sale, be declared public lands, and 
presto ! the land is entered and sold, and the proceeds 
converted to the use of the United States ! The 
claimant citizen of the ceded territory, who was 
looking to this government for the*stipulated protec- 
tion of his property, is coolly told that, if his title 
proves valid, he must pull up his stakes, and set them 
around an equal quantity of vacant land elsewhere ! 
Louisiana has repeatedly petitioned Congress; Missouri 



*See act of July 2, 1836, laying out. six towns in 
Iowa, and amendatory act March 3, 1837, and reports 
of bills by Mr. Collamer and Mr. Houston, House of 
Representatives, March 23, 1844. 

fSee Vattel's Law of Nations. Kent's Commen- 
taries. 



has petioned, and multitudes of citizens have petition 
ed, and yet most of the claims remain, in statu quo 
ante petitionem. Show me, if you can, a nation vio- 
lating a treaty, and maltreating its enemies, with 
more provoking injustice than this government has 
visited upon its own citizens. I venture to say that, 
in the whole category of general laws on this sub- 
ject, passed by Congress from 1803 to this day, there 
is not one enacted in the spirit of the treaty stipula- 
tion—not one that does not contain some unwarrant- 
able restriction upon the claimant or some usurpation 
of his rights— not one, therefore, which extends that 
ample, full and generous shield of protection to the 
rights of private property in the ceded territory, 
which the inhabitants were promised by the kings of 
Spain and France, and which the United States 
bound themselves, solemnly and absolutely, to afford. 
The claimants, therefore, remain with titles unquiet- 
ed and insecure — with titles confirmed, yet unpatent- 
ed — titles favorably reported on, yet unconfirmed — 
titles frighted from the courts by the enormous ex- 
pense imposed upon the effort to establish their va- 
lidity — titles proved, but locations removed — and 
with titles by complete grants from the former gov- 
ernment, yet usurped and sold by this ! 

Whoever reviews this unpleasant chapter of na- 
tional delinquencies, must feel that justice, human- 
ity and patriotism require some effectual and decisive 
remedy to cure the evils complained of. And, J 

' If it were done, when 'tis done, then 'twere well 
• It were done quickly.' 

The bills in Congress, are calculated to satisfy some 
claimants, but do not seem to be in the spirit of the 
treaty stipulation, nor adequate to the strict demands 
of justice. Nor are the indications, 1 fear, favorable 
to their being improved, or passed at all, at present- 
They revive the acts of May 26, 1824, and May 24, 
1828, excluding such portions of those acts as appli- 
ed to the territory of Arkansas. The second section 
of the act of May 26, 1824, gives power to the courts 
' by final decree, to settle and determine the question 
' of the validity of the title according to the law of 
< nations, the stipulations of any treaty and proceed- 
' ings under the same, the several acts of Congress 
1 in oelation thereto, and the laws and ordinances of 
' the Government from which it is alleged to be de- 
1 rived, and all othet questions properly arising be- 
* tween the claimant and the United States," &c 
This provision of the act of 1824 is deemed accep- 
table. 

Most of the claimants under French and Spanish 
grants, it is apprehended, need no new law to give 
additional strength to their title. All they require, 
or ought to ask, is a fair and just law by which to try 
the validity of their titles upon their merits. This 



end would be sufficiently attained by an act of Con- 
gress giving jurisdiction to the U. S. District Courts, 
to try and decide upon the claims, mainly, in confor- 
mity with the provisions of the second, third and 
sixth sections of the act of May 26, 1824 ; and there 
is no reasonable objection to any of the provisions of 
that entire act, so far as applicable, excepting the 
eleventh section thereof. This section, as I have be« 
fore shown, gives a preference to intruders upon the 
claims, over the claimaints themselves ! And, ob- 
noxious and unjust, as it is, it is now proposed to be 
revived and enlarged, in the following terms : 

" No confirmation which shall be made by the 
' decree of the court under the provisions of this act, 
1 and the acts hereby revived, shall be considered as 
' ratifying the title of the confirmees, under such 
' decree, to any lands within the limits of the claim 
' so confirmed, which may have been heretofore sold 
' or otherwise disposed of, pursuant to, or under color 
1 of, any law of the United States, or to any claim 
' by pre-emption, held and possessed in good faith, by 
1 actual habitation and cultivation" &c. " But all 
' confirmees having claims so interfered with, by any 
' such prior sales, or authorized locations, or rights 
' of pre-emption, or any other form of title which has 
1 been derived under or confirmed by any act of Con- 
1 gress, shall be entitled to locate an equal quantity of 
' land as interfered with on any public land in either 
'of the said States or Territory where the confirmed 
1 claim lies, subject to sale at private entry, and in 
' conformity with the subdivisions of the public sur- 
1 veys." Sen. bill sec. 2. 

There are but few claimants, having valid titles, 
and feeling assured by the treaty, who could in jus- 
tice to themselves submit to a trial under such a pro« 
vision of law, or its prototype, the 11th section of 
the act of 1824. Whether they could, would depend 
upon the situation of their claims, and their prospects 
of good new locations. Observe the effects and 
measure the justice here proposed. The claimants 
are required to establish their title under their for- 
mer government to be good according to the law 
of nations, treaty stipulations, and the laws and ordi- 
nances of the former government, &c. And when, 
at great labor and expense, they have so established 
their title to the whole of the tracts they claim, then 
they shall not have the land! But what? They must 
take the refuse parts thereof not occupied by others, 
or seek elsewhere an equal quantity of land subject 
to sale by private entry. Thus in lieu of property 
which they shall prove to be their own, much of it 
perhaps-* T ell chosen and valuable, it matters not if it 
be wor\h $1^0 the foot, they shall take lands which 
nobody e^se has entered, and which would not bring 
at public sale $1 25 per acre ! Is there any justice 
or equity in all this' Can the claimants, in justice 
to themselves, take action under any law tending to 
such results ? 

If the new law were to be an unconditional eon- 



firmatlon of the titles which had been reported favo- 
rably on by aDy of the boards of commissioners, with- 
out the trouble, expense, and delay of proceedings 
in courts, such present confirmation excepting the 
lands heretofore sold by the government, and admit- 
ting all the other provisions of the 11th section of the 
act of 1824, and of the 2d section of the act now pro- 
posed, might render it proper for the claimants to 
consult and determine whether or not, in order to 
avoidsuch expense, trouble, and delay, it might not 
be best to accept the provisions of such a law, and 
thereby get immediate possession of all that part of 
their property not sold by the government, and oth- 
er lands in lieu of those which have been so sold. — 
The difficulties of proving the titles have greatly in- 
creased with the lapse of time, the death of witness- 
es, and the resistance of the government, united 
with new parties interested in possession adverse to 
the claimants, and claiming under the United States. 
If, therefore, the law requires the claimants to go 
through all the expense, trouble, and delay of estab- 
lishing the validity of their title according to the law 
of nations, and the treaties, laws, ordinances, and 
usages of the former Government, then can they, 
ought they to submit to any thing short of the identi- 
cal land to which they shall have so established their 
title, or its value received by the government? — 
And should they not refuse to take any action under 
a law which withheld this right? The claimants 
ask nothing but what is reasonable and equitable. — 
They ask no new strength to their titles ; but they 
ask that, when they prove them, they shall have the 
property " nominated in the bond ," or its equivalent, 
not merely in quantity of acres, but in value. If the 
government prefer, they can remunerate, not the 
claimants under the grant, but those to whom they 
have sold the grantees property as town lots and 
upon pre-emption rights. 

But if the claimants will not prosecute their 
grants under any law containing the provisions of the 
11th section of the act of May 26, 1824, within two 
years from the date of the new act proposed, they are 
to be " forever barred" and the United States are to 
seize and sell their lands! In this there is perceived 
neither'reason, equity nor humanity. With deference, 
I submit that no act, which requires claimants to es- 
tablish their titles to be good and valid under a former 
government, according to the law of nations, treaties, 
ordinances, &c, can also give legal force to a provi- 
sion in the same act, declaring that, after they have so 
established their title, the claimants to whom it shall be 
decreed as belonging shall not have it! but take 
something else they do not want in lieu of it, not 
worth perhaps a hundredth part of that which is law- 
fully established to be their own ! No law contain- 
ing such absurdity as this, can ever bar their right- 



Their rights under the treaty cannot be thus divested 
by an act of Congress. 

But some of the claimants may ask, if such be the 
law, how are they to get a final decision of the mat- 
ter or quiet possession of the property 1 This ques- 
tion presents some difficulty. It is, however, sup- 
posed that they might proceed in chancery, or other- 
wise, in the Circuit Courts of the United States, 
against any or all of those who claim title from this 
government, showing the title in full under which 
they claim, and seeking a decree to annul the titles 
granted by the United States, and to decree that the 
titles so granted by the United States shall rest abso- 
lutely in and belong to the owners of the Spanish, or 
French grant, and to their heirs and assigns, in virtue 
of their piior rights, &c. In some proceeding of this 
sort, despite the one-sided and usurping laws of Con- 
gress, it is thought the whole subject of each claim, 
on its merits, may be taken before the Supreme Court 
of the United States, from the States now existing, 
and from Iowa when it becomes a State, if not now 
while Iowa is a Territory. The claimants of perfect 
grants, it is pres umed, would find no difficulty in pro- 
ceeding against all intruders upon their claims, 
whether they have intruded under color of laws of 
Congress or otherwise, in bringing them into the fed- 
eral courts, and demanding the protection stipulated 
by the treaty. The courts already have jurisdiction 
over all cases arising under the laws, constitution or 
treaties ot the United States, and appeals lie to the Su- 
preme Court of the Union ; and that court, in case 
there be wrongful decisions in the Circuit, district or 
even Territorial courts, will sustain the titles to all 
property that was lawfully or equitably vested in pri- 
vate citizens at the time of the cession of the country. 

But there is no reason why Congress should at- 
tempt to shy off these claimants. If they are nume- 
rous and some of the claims large, they were the in- 
cumbrances of the purchase of the territory, and 
this government knew and recognised the fact 
when they made the great bargain. Little did 
the 77,000 inhabitants of the ceded territory 
imagine, while the flattering benediction of Na- 
poleon and the solemn promises of a gov- 
ernment with Jbfferson at its head, were yet cheer- 
ing their hearts, that a Republican Government could 
beutherwise than faithful to the obligations of trea- 
ties, and paternal in its jurisdiction over private rights 
Little did they comprehend how Democratic Repre- 
sentatives could feel power and forget right, or be- 
come transformed from the "'humble friend, and obe- 
dient servants" of the people in their election canvass, 
to the pompous advocates in Congress of the strength, 
prerogative, and dominion of government against the 
rights of the citizen. But they awoke from this false 
security to see the charters of their domestic happi- 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



s 



027 33 1 



554 8 



ness defied, disputed and disavow^, — and they and 
their heirs abandoned to that beggarly and humilia- 
ting dependence, as modern times have unfortunately 
made it — the force of a •petition to Congress! But 
here, alas, they are, with their hats off and petitions 
in their hands ; and the stipulations of the treaty on 
which they relied — the spirit of equity and justice to 
which they have patiently looked, solemnly require 
that they shall be kindly met, — that such of their 
claims as are righteous should be absolutely confirmed 
and forever quieted, or that jurisdiction should be 
given to some suitable court to try the validity of 
their titles, upon theii merits, to the identical property 
they claim. If the decision in court be against them, 
there the claim ends and they give it up. If it be de- 
clared in their favor, then let them hold their land, 
and.not something else they neither claim nor desire, 
unless it be equivalent. If the United States, after 
so rich a bargain, cannot afford to be liberal, they 
can at least be just. The longer such final determi- 
nation is delayed, the more persons will be brought 
into trouble by it. The towns located upon the 
claims are growing — the lands of the claimants not 
now taken will soon be settled— the difficulties of law- 
ful provision will be increased — and lot occupiers and 
owners, settlers and claimants, as well as the States 
themselves, will feel an equal interest in having these 
disputes about proprietorship settled, and the titles 
forever quieted. And no laws can produce the peace 
desired, but such as shall be founded in impartial jus- 
tice to all concerned. 

As this subject, unless disposed of, will become 
more and more interesting and important, as time 
marches onward, I will add such general references 
for those who wish to study it, as will facilitate their 
inquiries. 

Treaties. Of Fontainbleau, Nov. 3, 1762; of 
St. Ildefonso, Oct. 1, 1800; of Paris, April 30, 1803; 
Cession of Florida, Feb. 22, 1819. 

Laws. March 26, 1804 ; March 2, 1805; Feb. 21, 
and April 21, 1806; March 3, 1807; Feb. 15, and 
March 3, 1811 ; March 10, Apiil 10, and 25, and 



June 13, 1812; March 3, 1813; April 12, and 18, 
1814; April 29, 1816; May 11, 1820; Feb. 28, 1823; 
May 26, 1824 ; Feb. 25, 1825 ; March 31, May 16, and 
22, 1826; May 24, 1828; July 4, and 9, 1832; 
March 2, 1833; July 2, and 4, 1836; August 16, 
1842 ; March 3, 1843, and White's Spanish Laws. 

Reports op Boards of Commissioners. Jan. 8 
and 20, and June 23, 24, Oct. 16, and Dec. 1, 1612; 
June 22, 1813; May 1, 1815; Jan. 19, and Feb. 2, 
April 8, and Nov. 20, 1816; Feb. 5, 1818; May 12^ 
1820; Jan 3, 1821; Jan. 13, 1823; Nov. 27, 1833' 
See also reports from the Land Office. 

Reports of Committees in Congress. In Se- 
nate, Mr. Berrien, Jan. 9, 1828; Mr. Linn, April 20, 
1842 ; Mr. Henderson, Aug, 24, 1842. In the House, 
Mr. Robertson, March 23, 1816 ; Mr. Storrs, Jan. 14, 
1830; Mr. C. Johnson, Dec. 29,1832; Mr, Moore, 
Jan. 19, 1843 ; Mr. Slidell, Jan. 9, and Mr. Brown, 
Jan. 11, 1844. Numerous Teports in favor of particu- 
larTclaims in 1828,-'9-'30-'3l-'32-'33. 

Decisions of the Supreme Court. — Soulard et 
al. vs. the U. S. ; 4th Peters' Reports, p. 511 ; Arre- 
dondo and al. vs. the U. S., 6 Peters, p. 691 ; U. S. 
vs. Perchman, 7 Peters, p. 51 ; Delusas vs. the U. 
S., 9 Peters, p. 133; Soulard's heirs vs. the U. S., 
10 Peters, p. 100 ; Strother v. Lucas, 12 Peters, p. 
410; U. S. vs. Kingsley, 12 Peters, p. 476; Report 
of judicial decisions in Arkansas, made by the Attor- 
ney General of the United Statees, January 29, 
1830. 

Miscellaneous. — Mr. Crawford's plan for adjustr 
ing these claims, December 8, 1818. President's 
Message, 1826; memorials of Louisiana Legislature, 
March 20, 1820, and January 7, 1828; ditto of citi- 
zens of Missouri, January 4, 1828; February 13, 
1828, (an able one) ; March 1, 1828 ; January 13 , 
1829 ; application of the State of Missouri, February 
28, 1831 ; Marbois' Louisiana ; Martin's do. ; White's 
Recopilacion. 

And for reference to the author of this, I take the 
liberty of subscribing myself, 

THOMAS ALLEN, 

Of St. Louis. 



LI**** OF CONGRESS 



■ 55 331 554 8 



u»*L*i2SS 



f ?27 331 554 8 



